The entire comment is unmitigated bullshit. Think about it; it uses the years 1654-85 as a representative sample of European immigrants to North America, but that’s absurd because we know for a fact that mass immigration from Europe didn’t really start until the 19th century so it can’t be even remotely true that most white Americans are descendants of the immigrants they use in their sample. It’s shoddy and intellectually dishonest scholarship that’s obviously and almost comically pushing an agenda. As such it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
The problem isn’t the immigrants themselves that are coming to steal land or kill people, it’s their children. One that comes to mind is Donald Trump whose mother was an immigrant.
Because that’s what makes it wrong. If “better life” for one is profiting off slavery and genocide and for the other its “chance at a peaceful life” then comparing them whitewashes the formers intention.
Edit: it also seems to elude everyone that literally the first line in my source goes against the “seeking a better life” line, so I don’t know why people think my source doesn’t cover that
I know? I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here, if it is “OPs post is not just talking about people being persecuted but also about people looking for a better life” then I hope my edit to my original comment answers that
When people say that immigrants to the US were looking for “a better way of life” it suggests that they are fleeing a life of hardship and poverty. This is wrong when talking about the “early” white settler immigrants to the US, a period which still spans a couple centuries. And the later, white working class immigrants still looked for ways to profit off slavery and genocide, the “better life” for them was built on stolen land and labor. It’s nothing like the current immigrants to the US which the GOP loudly and the Dems quietly look to oppress.
I would also draw your attention to the first line of the quote in my original comment which explicitly calls out this “seeking a better life” fable, which is only true for the white settlers (“almost” all of them) if we consider a life furthering slavery and genocide to be better than what they had at home.
At any rate the goals of the white immigrants were exploitative while the goals of the current immigrants is to escape exploitation and putting them as equal is dishonest at best.
If I misunderstood what appears to be a throwaway comment please elaborate
I would also draw your attention to the first line of the quote in my original comment which explicitly calls out this “seeking a better life” fable, which is only true for the white settlers (“almost” all of them) if we consider a life furthering slavery and genocide to be better than what they had at home.
This is reductive. The American civil war and therefore slavery ended with 1865 – yes I know apartheid after that, but people emigrating back then surely didn’t do it with the idea of “I can become a slave-lord there”. In Germany, Bismarck introduced mandatory public healthcare 1883, one of the reasons was to slow immigration to the US: While in the US there was opportunity, there also wasn’t any kind of safety net whatsoever. (The other big reason was to cut political ground from under the social democrats’s feet, as well as to bring mutual insurances workers had founded under state control – he was, after all, Prussian).
So immigration from Germany was still an issue large enough for the empire to address it directly while slavery was already abolished. And the type of people this legislation addressed was squarely workers: People earning under 2000 Goldmark a year (about 17000 Euro now). Some pre-83 versions even only applied to miners, then steel workers, then it got expanded to all workers.
Another tidbit would be immigrants from North Germany in particular: While enforcement could certainly have been better any Hanse ship was generally forbidden to engage in slave trade, and people got dispossessed for so much as transporting slave chains. The whole idea of slavery just didn’t vibe with North German republicanism which had the motto “Neither master nor serf be” even while the free cities were still oligopolies. People took great pleasure and pride from passing laws such as forbidding nobles from living in the city, or going after their debts and actually putting them in prison until they paid up (by selling their land): Elsewhere, as a noble, you were above the law. Socio-economic differences were stark but a liberal notion of equality was universal (or, in the still feudal parts, desired) and any immigrant would’ve taken that with them to the US. They also didn’t tend to immigrate to the south, this is conflating North German and Scandinavian immigrants but a map of Lutheranism in the US should give an impression.
I am unable to dissect everything going on with your comment, I urge you to read the book for yourself. The profiting off slavery didn’t stop with slavery, it is core to the wealth of the US empire which attracted the european immigrants who were looking to be part of an economy which at its motor had slavery for centuries and, after that, the continued oppression and segregation of it’s non-white communities. The distinction is between chattel and wage-slavery where the working class was divided along racial lines. These immigrants came with the goal of taking the jobs of non-white people, tying their fortune to the continued oppression of non-white people. Again, please read the book it’s plain as day. To quote another section:
What was the essence of the ideology of white labor? Petit-bourgeois annexationism. … But, typically, their petit-bourgeois vision saw for themselves a special, better kind of wage-slavery. The ideology of white labor held that as loyal citizens of the Empire even wage-slaves had a right to special privileges (such as “white man’s wages”), beginning with the right to monopolize the labor market.
We must cut sharply through the liberal camouflage concealing this question. It is insufficient - and therefore misleading - to say that European workers wished to “discriminate against” or “exclude” or were “prejudiced against” colored workers. It was the labor of Afrikan and Indian workers that created the economy of the original Amerika; likewise, the economy of the Southwest was distilled from the toil of the Indian/Mexicano workers, and that of Northern California and the Pacific Northwest was built by Mexicano and Chinese labor. Immigrant European workers proposed to enter an economy they hadn’t built, and ‘annex’, so as to speak, the jobs that the nationally oppressed had created.
And that last line is meant literally, it’s about the riots and lynchings these immigrants took part in in order to take the jobs that had traditionally be held by non-white workers. Talking about the chinese workers who had built the railroad for example:
The time-distance across the continent was now cut to two weeks, and cheap railroad tickets brought a flood of European workers to the West. There was, of course, an established settler traditon of terrorism towards Chinese. The Shasta Republican complained in its Dec. 12, 1856 issue that: “Hundreds of Chinamen have been slaughtered in cold blood in the last 5 years…the murder of Chinamen was of almost daily occurrence.” Now the new legions of immigrant European workers demanded a qualitative increase in the terroristic assaults, and the 1870’s and 1880’s were decades of mass bloodshed.
The issue was very clear-cut - jobs. By 1870, some 42% of the whites in California were European immigrants. With their dreams of finding gold boulders lying in the streams having faded before reality, these new crowds of Europeans demanded the jobs that Chinese labor had created. More than demanded, they were determined to “annex”, to seize by force of conquest, all that Chinese workers had in the West. In imitation of the bourgeoisie they went about plundering with bullets and fire. In mining camps and towns from Colorado to Washington, Chinese communities came under attack. Many Chinese were shot down, beaten, their homes and stores set afire and gutted. In Los Angeles Chinese were burned alive by the European vigilantes, who also shot and tortured many others.
That you would paint the rise of the liberal capitalist class as something to be cheered on by the oppressed and as the beginning of an end to racism beggars belief, it were the workers fleeing capitalism in europe that formed the vanguard of the oppression against the non-white workers. The book goes into great detail about the workers that europe was bleeding, which forced it’s capitalist class to make the concessions you mentioned. They indeed brought the ideas of liberalism with them into the US, its just that these ideas of “equality” never were about solidarity among workers across the present racial lines.
With their dreams of finding gold boulders lying in the streams having faded before reality, these new crowds of Europeans demanded the jobs that Chinese labor had created.
Note how that’s not precisely not about what those people thought when they left Europe? They were American, at that point.
Don’t make the mistake of confusing why people left, and what they thought they would do in America, with what US material conditions drove them to do. This is precisely what OP’s post is addressing: That you should remember that people came in search of a better life, and that the conditions the American bourgeois in general (now represented by the GOP) instituted in the country made finding that better life impossible.
Also back then most Europeans weren’t even considered “white”, pretty much every group not from England went through an erm “Hispanic phase” – I’ll of course grant that Germans weren’t terribly affected by this, but ask the Irish or Italians. The racial card has always been used by the American bourgeois to divide and conquer as they please and I’d caution against playing into that narrative by deepening grudges. If you have to choose between class consciousness and identity politics, be a good Marxist and choose class consciousness.
I don’t know how we’re reading the same sentence and arrive at opposite conclusions. Even if you were right about the goldrush in indian land not being a motivating factor for droves of immigrants I think my larger point, how incomparable the motivation for white immigrants and the currently oppressed immigrants is, still stands by the actions the europeans undertook upon arrival. This is not about dividing people into racist groups, but clearly talking about the racial divide that was drawn up by the capitalist class. Not talking about the deep racism in the european immigrant movement, regardless of their class status, in fear of “deepening grudges” is revisionist.
They didnt flee persecution. Also the “better life” was built on the back of slaves, which seems a bit disingenous phrasing.
Edit I guess the point is that the people coming to steal land and genocide peoples aren’t like the immigrants today, its a false equivalence
Edit2 also the first line literally disagrees with that
What about the Irish?
The entire comment is unmitigated bullshit. Think about it; it uses the years 1654-85 as a representative sample of European immigrants to North America, but that’s absurd because we know for a fact that mass immigration from Europe didn’t really start until the 19th century so it can’t be even remotely true that most white Americans are descendants of the immigrants they use in their sample. It’s shoddy and intellectually dishonest scholarship that’s obviously and almost comically pushing an agenda. As such it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Everything they’ve said is blatant propaganda word salad that they’re regurgitating completely out of context.
Read the book its very good
The problem isn’t the immigrants themselves that are coming to steal land or kill people, it’s their children. One that comes to mind is Donald Trump whose mother was an immigrant.
So, one part of what the original post is wrong according to your source. Not the whole thing.
No, the whole thing is wrong because its a false equivalence. “Better life” meant different things for the white settlers and the current immigrants.
Why is that relevant?
Because that’s what makes it wrong. If “better life” for one is profiting off slavery and genocide and for the other its “chance at a peaceful life” then comparing them whitewashes the formers intention.
Edit: it also seems to elude everyone that literally the first line in my source goes against the “seeking a better life” line, so I don’t know why people think my source doesn’t cover that
Some surely did. Among those who definitely did not flee persecution were the Pilgrims, those flew from not being able to persecute.
“some” sure, but definitely not “almost all” as the post says.
OP’s post says “or”.
I know? I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here, if it is “OPs post is not just talking about people being persecuted but also about people looking for a better life” then I hope my edit to my original comment answers that
I would also draw your attention to the first line of the quote in my original comment which explicitly calls out this “seeking a better life” fable, which is only true for the white settlers (“almost” all of them) if we consider a life furthering slavery and genocide to be better than what they had at home.
At any rate the goals of the white immigrants were exploitative while the goals of the current immigrants is to escape exploitation and putting them as equal is dishonest at best.
If I misunderstood what appears to be a throwaway comment please elaborate
This is reductive. The American civil war and therefore slavery ended with 1865 – yes I know apartheid after that, but people emigrating back then surely didn’t do it with the idea of “I can become a slave-lord there”. In Germany, Bismarck introduced mandatory public healthcare 1883, one of the reasons was to slow immigration to the US: While in the US there was opportunity, there also wasn’t any kind of safety net whatsoever. (The other big reason was to cut political ground from under the social democrats’s feet, as well as to bring mutual insurances workers had founded under state control – he was, after all, Prussian).
So immigration from Germany was still an issue large enough for the empire to address it directly while slavery was already abolished. And the type of people this legislation addressed was squarely workers: People earning under 2000 Goldmark a year (about 17000 Euro now). Some pre-83 versions even only applied to miners, then steel workers, then it got expanded to all workers.
Another tidbit would be immigrants from North Germany in particular: While enforcement could certainly have been better any Hanse ship was generally forbidden to engage in slave trade, and people got dispossessed for so much as transporting slave chains. The whole idea of slavery just didn’t vibe with North German republicanism which had the motto “Neither master nor serf be” even while the free cities were still oligopolies. People took great pleasure and pride from passing laws such as forbidding nobles from living in the city, or going after their debts and actually putting them in prison until they paid up (by selling their land): Elsewhere, as a noble, you were above the law. Socio-economic differences were stark but a liberal notion of equality was universal (or, in the still feudal parts, desired) and any immigrant would’ve taken that with them to the US. They also didn’t tend to immigrate to the south, this is conflating North German and Scandinavian immigrants but a map of Lutheranism in the US should give an impression.
I am unable to dissect everything going on with your comment, I urge you to read the book for yourself. The profiting off slavery didn’t stop with slavery, it is core to the wealth of the US empire which attracted the european immigrants who were looking to be part of an economy which at its motor had slavery for centuries and, after that, the continued oppression and segregation of it’s non-white communities. The distinction is between chattel and wage-slavery where the working class was divided along racial lines. These immigrants came with the goal of taking the jobs of non-white people, tying their fortune to the continued oppression of non-white people. Again, please read the book it’s plain as day. To quote another section:
And that last line is meant literally, it’s about the riots and lynchings these immigrants took part in in order to take the jobs that had traditionally be held by non-white workers. Talking about the chinese workers who had built the railroad for example:
That you would paint the rise of the liberal capitalist class as something to be cheered on by the oppressed and as the beginning of an end to racism beggars belief, it were the workers fleeing capitalism in europe that formed the vanguard of the oppression against the non-white workers. The book goes into great detail about the workers that europe was bleeding, which forced it’s capitalist class to make the concessions you mentioned. They indeed brought the ideas of liberalism with them into the US, its just that these ideas of “equality” never were about solidarity among workers across the present racial lines.
Note how that’s not precisely not about what those people thought when they left Europe? They were American, at that point.
Don’t make the mistake of confusing why people left, and what they thought they would do in America, with what US material conditions drove them to do. This is precisely what OP’s post is addressing: That you should remember that people came in search of a better life, and that the conditions the American bourgeois in general (now represented by the GOP) instituted in the country made finding that better life impossible.
Also back then most Europeans weren’t even considered “white”, pretty much every group not from England went through an erm “Hispanic phase” – I’ll of course grant that Germans weren’t terribly affected by this, but ask the Irish or Italians. The racial card has always been used by the American bourgeois to divide and conquer as they please and I’d caution against playing into that narrative by deepening grudges. If you have to choose between class consciousness and identity politics, be a good Marxist and choose class consciousness.
I don’t know how we’re reading the same sentence and arrive at opposite conclusions. Even if you were right about the goldrush in indian land not being a motivating factor for droves of immigrants I think my larger point, how incomparable the motivation for white immigrants and the currently oppressed immigrants is, still stands by the actions the europeans undertook upon arrival. This is not about dividing people into racist groups, but clearly talking about the racial divide that was drawn up by the capitalist class. Not talking about the deep racism in the european immigrant movement, regardless of their class status, in fear of “deepening grudges” is revisionist.